What should ID be?

I came across a blog post entitled The Great ID Debate the other day. I actually found it quite interesting to read.

I found the last three paragraphs quite poignant:

Think about it - these days a good ID needs to be able to write instructional objective. Conduct a content analysis. And an audience analysis. Measure job/performance outcomes. Write a criterion referenced test Create a shared collaborative experience and measure its impact. Script a simulation. Create Camtasia movies. Know a .swf from a .flv. Produce a virtual webinar on any number of web platforms. Develop a website. Administer a blog. Program in Actionscript 3. Administer an LMS or two or three. Metatag your content so that everyone in your organization can find it. Create a video and post it to YouTube. Write a report. Evaluate the impact of a performance support initiative in your workplace. Manage a project. Handle a budget. Fix the copier. Trouble-shoot the network....

With all due respect to the university faculty who have taught each and every one of us how to be instructional designers....very few faculty types have ever had to actually produce learning content for a living. With all due respect to the greater minds among us, sometimes the trick of ID is not coming up with the most unique, creative, forward-thinking, innovative response to a learning problem or opportunity. Sometimes a repeatable, scalable approach to solving a performance problem for the greatest number of people at the least amount of cost really IS the best answer.

So...what to YOU think and ID should be able to do? Are we technologists? pyschologists? evaluators? programmers? DO we need business skills? theoretical cognitive skills? IT skills? Are we artists or engineers or a little of everything in-between?




What IS an instructional designer? What should an instructional designer be able to do? Let's say that this instructional designer just finished their Masters degree. I think this is a good question to ask because it points to a general disconnect that I've seen in many fields between hiring processes, job requirements and the insistence of a certain degree.

Now as a student, while it is important for me to learn something about the technology aspect, I think it's more important to learn about the psychology and the educational theory aspects in Instructional Design. Technology comes and goes, those aspects are (somewhat) universally applicable in my opinion. To require someone to be a programmer, a technologist, an evaluator a business guru and ten other things really means that you want a jack of all trades (therefore a master of none).

If you need an LMS administrator - you don't need an instructional designer. If you need a project manager, you don't need an instructional designer. If you need an animator, you don't need an instructional designer. Now if an instructional designer can competently do more than one thing that is great, but you shouldn't expect your Instructional Designer to have all those aforementioned qualities. It's like expecting all subject matter experts to be instructional designers as well. Some may be, but it's generally not true of the whole class.


What do you think?

Comments

Anonymous said…
virtual webinar

That's like saying Sunday Day.

I really started the ID program to learn more of the psych aspects… to answer the question, "how can one human present information in a way that helps another human develop knowledge?"

Of course, I brought a wealth of technological knowledge and experience with me… probably more than most of the faculty. Most students don't have that advantage.

Now that I'm in my second year of classes, it easy to see that everyone who produces materials for learning is also a de facto designer. Something I'm interested in exploring more.
March 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more

MOOC participation - open door policy and analytics

The other day I was reading ZML Didaktik on the topic of MOOC participants. In MOOCs, one of the big questions is why are people lurking and not participating? If more than 500 people join a MOOC, why are only 10% contributing with any amount of regularity?  On the same blog, in a previous blog post, I had commented (it was an open stream of thought really) that perhaps there should be an open enrollment period, and then if the system sees that certain participants are bellow a threshold of activity, the system may give them the option to self-identify as a lurker, or un-register from the class. This line of thought went along a view that compared to the traditional classroom; in a traditional classroom students register for the course, they can attend classes for a week and then decide whether or not they want to stay with the course or not. If they do stay with the course they know that there is a certain amount of "lurking" that they can get away with, but they do have
Read more

You've been punk'd! However, that was an educational experience

Image
It's now the end of Teaching Goes Massive: New Skills Required (aka #massiveteaching) on coursera. Well, almost, we still have a couple of days left. I guess that the lesson here is that we were (the "learners") were punk'd† by Paul-Olivier Dehaye of the Univerisity of Zurich. After that last blog post (and subsequent pickup of the post by George Siemens and others) Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle wanted to chat with me about this MOOC experience. I only had time for one of the two before things went to press, so my 15 minutes of fame went to IHE.  Both IHE and the C hronicle have written about the topic, and have received some information from Coursera on the incident.  Others have also written about it (see here , here and here ) It's surprising to me that the University, and Coursera, waited until after this thing was a big issue in order to respond in the class, and clue people into what was happening. On Wednesday (day 3 of Week 3/3 of the
Read more